Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

968 F.

2d 1224
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
further order.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

Jesus SEGOVIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 91-6373.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

July 14, 1992.

Before JOHN P. MOORE, TACHA and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

JOHN P. MOORE, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The cause is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Jesus Segovia appeals from a sentence entered after his plea of guilty to a one
count indictment charging him with escape from the Federal Correctional
Institution at El Reno, Oklahoma. After pleading guilty, Mr. Segovia
apparently filed a pro se pleading asserting he had been taken into federal
custody in Texas at a point which would require adjustment of his sentence.
That pleading is not a part of this record. After a full evidentiary hearing, the
district court found there was no evidence to support Mr. Segovia's claim. On
appeal, Mr. Segovia's counsel has filed an Anders brief asserting four separate
issues, none of which were raised in the trial court. We affirm.

After escaping from El Reno, an act which Mr. Segovia does not dispute, he
ultimately wound up in the custody of the State of Texas on two state charges.
After serving one sentence, Mr. Segovia was transported to another state
institution to serve the other. The only issue presented to the district court was
whether Mr. Segovia had been transported by a federal marshal from the first to
the second state institution. That fact was placed in issue because Mr. Segovia
contended he became a federal prisoner when he was taken into the custody of
the U.S. Marshal. Because of that contention, defendant believes he is entitled
to receive credit on his federal sentence for his Texas jail time.

Prompted by this unusual claim, the district court conducted an evidentiary

hearing into the underlying facts. When called upon, Mr. Segovia could not
identify the person who transported him as a federal marshal. His only evidence
consisted of a hearsay statement from an unidentified source in the second
Texas institution that the person who delivered Mr. Segovia was a federal
marshal. He stated, "I sincerely believe and I know that I was picked up by the
U.S. Marshals on February 27th, 1991, because I was shown paperwork at the
Harris County [jail] where it says that I was in federal--in the federal marshal's
custody, Your Honor."

The government's evidence consisted of the testimony of William Tsoodle, the

deputy U.S. Marshal assigned to Mr. Segovia's case following his escape from
El Reno. Deputy Tsoodle stated unequivocally Mr. Segovia was not picked up
by any deputy marshal until he was released from custody in the second
institution. He also affirmatively stated no federal marshal moved Mr. Segovia
from one state institution to another.

A memorandum from the U.S. Marshal's office in Austin, Texas, was identified
by Deputy Tsoodle and introduced into evidence. Among other things, that
memorandum stated that the City of Austin, from which Mr. Segovia was
originally transferred has "a unit called City Marshals and they work closely
with local authorities."

On the basis of the facts before it, the district court found "no evidence to
establish that Mr. Segovia was in federal custody ... at any time or under any
circumstances that would make his presence here in this case unauthorized,
inappropriate or absent of jurisdiction." There is nothing in the record to
indicate that finding is clearly erroneous. We therefore conclude there is no
factual substance to Mr. Segovia's claim, his protestation to the contrary

The remaining issues Mr. Segovia wishes this court to consider are not before
us. He failed to raise in the district court any question about the Interstate
Agreement on Detainers, his Sixth Amendment and statutory rights to speedy
trial, and his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Those
issues are more appropriate for collateral review, and because they were not
raised in this case in the district court we will not consider them.

This conclusion moots Mr. Segovia's pro se motion to file a supplemental brief.
That motion is accordingly denied as is counsel's motion for leave to withdraw.



This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or
used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing
the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th
Cir.R. 36.3